Below are a couple RAW files: 1Ds3 with 50mm 1.4 and the Phase p30+ on a Phase One/Mamiya body with the 80mm. There were shot at a dealer in order to compare shooting speed, tonality, shadow detail, etc. A crude test at best.*Because the viewfinder mask for the Phase was not in use, the bodies are effectively at different distances from the subjects, so these files are really no good for comparing resolution.*

The sales guy will be coming to a model shoot with me in the next week or two for a more effective test of the Phase camera…

I don't know if it was lag, or what...but I did ask the guy if second shutter sync was on, as the camera would click twice, once at first, and then maybe a half of a second later a second click and then the strobe would fire...It seemed odd, but I didn't have time to delve into the menus to see what was up. The sales guy didn't know what it was either.

I'll see it that still happens when I test the camera with daylight in a week or two.

I don't know if it was lag, or what...but I did ask the guy if second shutter sync was on, as the camera would click twice, once at first, and then maybe a half of a second later a second click and then the strobe would fire...It seemed odd, but I didn't have time to delve into the menus to see what was up. The sales guy didn't know what it was either.

I'll see it that still happens when I test the camera with daylight in a week or two.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202294\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sounds like he was using mirror lock up, but I don't know for sure of course.

The two shots are quite good comparable; the Canon's exposure is about 1/3 stop lower than that of the P30+. That's very good (in a test in controlled situation one would have to make several shots with both cameras 1/3 stop apart and select those, which are the closest).

Note: the histogram shows, that ISO 100 on the P30+ is "fake", it is the numerical derivative of whatever. I don't know if this fact had any influence on the result. One would have to create a serie of images to find out, which is the base ISO.

It is important to know, that in ACR

- the P30+ shots gets adjusted by -1 EV,

- the 1DsMkIII shot is adjusted by +0.35 EV.

These adjustments are not visible on the "Exposure" slider. In order to go back to the origin, the P30+ image has to be adjusted by +1 EV and the 1DsMkIII image by -0.35 EV.

After this reverse-adjustment and picking WB on the white or grey card, the RGB values on this card reflect the small true difference in the exposure; replacing the -0.35 EV by -0.15 EV equalizes the exposures.

Anyway, Rawnalyze is more suitable for analyzing them. It shows, that the level of noise in terms of standard deviation is virtually identical in these images, measured on very dark, smooth areas. However, I find the P30+ better on such areas subjectively.

Screen captures of the histograms and of different displays are in this, 3MB large layered TIFF

Note, that Rawnalyze displays the *raw* data. There is no noise reduction, etc. except for what is unavoidable, namely black level compensation on the 1DsMkIII image. I picked WB on the white card in both images; that changes the RGB values, and it was necessary to make the standard deviations comparable. The raw values are not comparable directly, as the pixel values of the 1DsMkIII are between 0 and 14256, and of the P30+ between 0 and 65535.

I do have a variety of exposures of these scenes, so let me know if you want the Canon at 1/3 brighter...

Thanks, but it is not necessary. This small difference is all right, as the comparison shows.

I miss something else, but you can't deliver that (until another test occasion?): very fine structures in very dark areas, to judge the reproduction of details. For example in these shots there is a blue strip around a cuchion or whatever beside the battery (?). This shows, that the P30+ captured details *much* better than the 1DsMkIII (shown in the captures), but

a. it is not dark enough,

b. more importantly, it is 50% larger on the P30+ (in pixels), thus it is not reasonable to compare the details on them. You can not expect the same level of details in much less pixels.

The files are fairly closely matched for FoV in the vertical direction, although the P30 image is a bit closer. But this is all right if one is testing the DR of the 1Ds3. Give it a slight disadvantage and see if it holds up. It does, in my opinion.

This result is surprising for me. I've always been willing to cut the MFDB crowd a lot of slack. Bigger sensors with more pixels have to produce better image quality. Same number of pixels on bigger sensors have to produce lower shadow noise.

But these shots from #203 seems to smash the myth. Both shots seem to be equally and fully exposed to the right; if anything, they are both overexposed.

Exposure is the same for both shots. In the 100% crops below, I've lightened the shadows equally and, this time, I've upressed the smaller file (the 1Ds3) to the same size as the P30 file.

Both images, for all practical purposes, are on a par, as I see it. This is a very surprising result indeed.

The files are fairly closely matched for FoV in the vertical direction, although the P30 image is a bit closer. But this is all right if one is testing the DR of the 1Ds3. Give it a slight disadvantage and see if it holds up. It does, in my opinion.

This result is surprising for me. I've always been willing to cut the MFDB crowd a lot of slack. Bigger sensors with more pixels have to produce better image quality. Same number of pixels on bigger sensors have to produce lower shadow noise.

But these shots from #203 seems to smash the myth. Both shots seem to be equally and fully exposed to the right; if anything, they are both overexposed.

Exposure is the same for both shots. In the 100% crops below, I've lightened the shadows equally and, this time, I've upressed the smaller file (the 1Ds3) to the same size as the P30 file.

Both images, for all practical purposes, are on a par, as I see it. This is a very surprising result indeed.

[attachment=7093:attachment]

Oops! The 1Ds3 image is on the right. Did you notice?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202363\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The files are fairly closely matched for FoV in the vertical direction, although the P30 image is a bit closer. But this is all right if one is testing the DR of the 1Ds3. Give it a slight disadvantage and see if it holds up. It does, in my opinion.

This result is surprising for me. I've always been willing to cut the MFDB crowd a lot of slack. Bigger sensors with more pixels have to produce better image quality. Same number of pixels on bigger sensors have to produce lower shadow noise.

But these shots from #203 seems to smash the myth. Both shots seem to be equally and fully exposed to the right; if anything, they are both overexposed.

Exposure is the same for both shots. In the 100% crops below, I've lightened the shadows equally and, this time, I've upressed the smaller file (the 1Ds3) to the same size as the P30 file.

Both images, for all practical purposes, are on a par, as I see it. This is a very surprising result indeed.

[attachment=7093:attachment]

Oops! The 1Ds3 image is on the right. Did you notice?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202363\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Why is the file on the left magenta?

I'm interested in how well the 1ds3 performs. I tested one when it came out and frankly thought it was too much of an incremental improvement over the 1ds2. Its a leap from a 5d, but not worth the upgrade.

Perhaps Michael could have a "Technical" forum that was devoted to MFDB v. 1ds3 and lens tech? Seriously, it would streamline things.

I'm interested in how well the 1ds3 performs. I tested one when it came out and frankly thought it was too much of an incremental improvement over the 1ds2. Its a leap from a 5d, but not worth the upgrade.

Perhaps Michael could have a "Technical" forum that was devoted to MFDB v. 1ds3 and lens tech? Seriously, it would streamline things.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202390\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

WHY? We are medium format shooters in here...I think Dpreview is good for 35mm dslr's..People in here may be comparing Medium format cameras with one another, but not 35mm...Snook

WHY? We are medium format shooters in here...I think Dpreview is good for 35mm dslr's..People in here may be comparing Medium format cameras with one another, but not 35mm...Snook[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202392\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yeah Snook, I think there should be a different forum for this stuff. But then again, I can just ignore it. I am interested in the 1ds3 for when I need a 35mm solution, not as a comparison to MFDB. I don't think the question, at least for me, is whether a 1ds3 is on par with a P30, its whether a 1ds3 is usable for my work in a pinch. I'm shooting a catalogue next week and might rent one for some of the atmospheric/environmental shots.

The last two layers in the file I posted show a selection on the very darkest, smooth area: the black scaffold. The selected spot's pixels are in the 9th and 10th stop in both shots.

The noise level is the same in both shots, but I find the P30+ reproduction much better. Unfortunately there is nothing there to compare the fine detail reproduction because of the different magnification. For proper comparison, the magnificationmeasured on pixels should be the same; the total field of view it totally irrelevant from this point.

Note, that it required +5 EV to lift this spot out of the darkness.

My impression is, that the DR of the P30 is somewhat better, although it is partly balanced by the slightly higher exposure of the P30+ shot.

WHY? We are medium format shooters in here...I think Dpreview is good for 35mm dslr's..People in here may be comparing Medium format cameras with one another, but not 35mm...Snook[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202392\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

WHY?Because anyone, professional or otherwise, who has an interest in the technology they use to make photographs will surely also be interested in the way the formats have slowly begun to converge over the last year or so. I don't think they will meet....but it's getting closer with every upgrade.

I personally use both formats, both have their particular place; but the times when I use my Mk3 instead of my Blad are becoming more frequent than they were last year with my Mk2.

Unlike a number of posts in this thread, I don't agree that the Canon files stand up against the Phase with very close scrutiny. But for a great many images that are destined to be crucified by a litho press in a commercial world... it really does do a remarkable job.

I think your "I think Dpreview is good for 35mm dslr's.." comment is simple, petty snobbery which serves no useful purpose. The tread is related to medium format photography, if it's specific content doesn't interest you....why comment at all? A number of people "in here" do seem interested.

Thanks Ron for posting the samples.... I appreciate a chance to look at this.

Also thanks Gabor for posting the photobola stuff.

I'd be surprised if anyone can really get meaningful DR data from the samples but in practical terms just push up the exposure and lift the shadows in both files and see what kind of detail you get. I see clear banding in the 1DsIII file when pushed hard and none in the P30. But in the p30 file there is moire in the bag when you push everything up (so the detail is still there). So the P30 seems to have more reach.

Also from a purely esthetic look the P30 file has a more real look - check out the red apple on the left side - color is more real in the p30 as there is more detail.

lastly we don't need another forum for DSLR vs MFDB we just need another forum for Ray.